2013/04: Have Australia's gun control laws been a success?

What they said...'Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer'
Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of law at George Mason University Law School

'Claims that Australian gun laws have increased crime are pure spin. These deceptive claims say more about the bitter partisan debate than about the reality in Australia'
Michael Brown, a senior lecturer at Monash University

The issue at a glance
Australian gun laws have recently attracted renewed attention.
On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut. The deaths have prompted the Obama administration to support a range of laws intended to reduce Americans' access to automatic weapons.
Australia's gun laws have been raised as an example that the United States could follow. The United States gun lobby has responded by criticising Australia's gun laws, casting doubt on their effectiveness.
On January 14, 2013, Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, from the University of Sydney's School of Public Health, released survey data indicating that gun ownership in Australia has again reached the levels attained immediately prior to the gun buyback that followed the Port Arthur massacre. This data has led to discussion within the Australian community on the effectiveness of our country's gun laws.

Gun laws have only become a notable issue in Australia since the 1980s. Low levels of violent crime through much of the 20th century kept levels of public concern about firearms low. However, in the last two decades of the century, following several high profile multiple murders and a media campaign, the Australian government co-ordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all state governments. Australia today has arguably some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the world.
From 1984 to 1996, multiple killings aroused public concern. The 1984 Milperra massacre was a major incident in a series of conflicts between various 'outlaw motorcycle gangs'. In 1987, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre took place in Melbourne. In response, several states required the registration of all guns, and restricted the availability of self-loading rifles and shotguns. In the Strathfield massacre in New South Wales, in1991, two were killed with a knife, and five more with a firearm. Tasmania passed a law in 1991 for firearm purchasers to obtain a licence, though enforcement was light. Firearm laws in Tasmania and Queensland remained relatively relaxed for long arms. In 1995, Tasmania had the second lowest rate of homicides per head of population.
Shooting massacres in Australia and other English-speaking countries often occurred close together in time. Forensic psychiatrists attribute this to copycat behaviour, which is in many cases triggered by sensational media treatment. Mass murderers study media reports and imitate the actions and equipment that are sensationalised in them.

The Port Arthur massacre and its consequences
The Port Arthur massacre, in 1996, transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Thirty five people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, this mass killing at the notorious former convict prison at Port Arthur horrified the Australian public and had powerful political consequences.
The Port Arthur perpetrator, Martin Bryant, said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence.
Prime Minister John Howard, then newly elected, immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws. The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

Some discussion of measures to allow owners to undertake modifications to reduce the capacity of magazine-fed shotguns ("crimping") occurred, but the government refused to permit this.
Surveys showed up to 85% of Australians supported gun control, but some farmers and sporting shooters strongly opposed the new laws.
The government planned a series of public meetings to explain the proposed changes. In the first meeting, on the advice of his security team, Howard wore a bullet-resistant vest, which was visible under his jacket. Many shooters were critical of this.
Some shooters applied to join the Liberal Party of Australia in an attempt to influence the government, but the Liberal Party barred them from membership. A court action by 500 shooters seeking admission to membership eventually failed in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997. The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.

Current Australian firearm laws
State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.
Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence.
Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.

Firearms categories
Firearms in Australia are grouped into categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.

Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market - the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.

These categories - A,B,C,D and H, were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implemented them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.
Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.
All single-shot muzzle-loading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).

Australia has very tight restrictions on items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as the UK. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to license. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are extremely restricted in Australia to a few government bodies.

On January 15, 2013, The Sydney Morning Herald ran an opinion piece by Andrew Leigh, the federal member for Fraser, and a former professor of economics at the Australian National University.
Leigh argues that the rise in the number of guns in Australia since 1997 is more than matched by our population growth.
The comment, titled 'Guns policy saving lives', can be accessed at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/guns-policy-saving-lives-20130114-2cpny.html

In 2013 an article by Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, from the University's School of Public Health, was published. The article is titled 'The Big Melt: How One Democracy Changed After Scrapping a Third of its Firearms'. The article analyses available data to demonstrate that gun-related deaths, injuries and crimes declined after the gun buyback and changed gun laws.
The full text of this article can be accessed at http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/australia

On December 26, 2012, The Wall Street Journal published a comment by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School and the author of several books including 'Guns and Violence: The English Experience.' The piece is titled 'Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control'.
In this comment Professor Malcolm uses British and Australian data to argue that stricter gun controls have not resulted in safer communities.
The full text of this argument can be accessed at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

On December 15, 2012, the United States news aggregation site breitbart.com published a comment by Awr Hawkins titled 'The Aussie Lesson: Less Guns, More Crime'.
The piece claims that the rate of gun-related assaults and murders rose in Australia after the gun buyback. (Please note that these claims are widely disputed.)
The full text of this comment can be accessed at http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/15/The-Aussie-Lesson-Less-Guns-More-Crime

On November 13, 2011, ABC Radio National ran a Background Briefing segment titled 'Guns are Back'. The analysis looks at the growing membership of gun clubs across Australia and the increasing political influence of the gun lobby in this country.
The implication of the program is that there has been a significant shift in popular attitudes toward guns since the Port Arthur massacre.
A full transcript of this program can be accessed at http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/guns-are-back/3653154#transcript

On January 19, 2011, The Daily Caller published an opinion piece by Ben-Peter Terpstra titled 'America, don't repeat Australia's gun control mistake'.
Terpstra is a freelance writer based in regional Victoria. He has lived and worked in the Northern Territory, Melbourne, Kyoto and London. He argues that Australia's strict gun laws have not been a success.
The full text of this comment can be found at http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/

On August 24, 2010, the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia (SSAA) published an opinion piece titled 'Claims by anti-gun activists shrill and ignorant'. The piece argues that Australia's stricter gun control laws have not resulted in a greater personal safety for law-abiding members of the public and have concentrated gun-ownership in the hands of criminals.
The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.ssaa.org.au/press-releases/2010-08-24_claims-by-anti-gun-activists-shrill-and-ignorant.html

In 2010 a study by Andrew Leigh, of the Research School of Economics, Australian National University and Christine Neill, of the Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University was published. The piece is titled 'Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data'
The analysis scrutinises available data to suggest that the gun buyback has resulted in a reduction in gun-related crime, violence and deaths.
The full text of this 49-page analysis can be accessed at http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

Arguments suggesting Australia's gun control laws have not been a success
1. The number of guns owned in Australia has risen above the levels at the time of the Port Arthur massacre
It has been claimed that the number of guns now in circulation within Australia is greater than that after the gun buyback which followed the Port Arthur massacre.
In an ABC news report published on November 12, 2011, it was noted, 'In the 15 years since Martin Bryant killed 35 people at the popular Tasmanian tourist site, the flow of firearms into Australia has eclipsed the amount recovered in the government funded buy-back scheme.'
The same report noted that in the 2010-11 financial year Australians imported more than 85,000 firearms, including 44,000 rifles, 12,000 shotguns and nearly 20,000 handguns and that in the preceding 16 months 47,000 new guns have been registered in Queensland alone.
Recent research conducted by the University of Sydney and released in January, 2013, has confirmed that gun ownership in Australia has again consolidated at pre buyback levels.
While there was an initial spike in gun purchases in Australia when owners of now-banned multi-shot rifles and shotguns replaced their weapons with single-fire guns in the four years after Port Arthur, gun imports fell and remained stagnant. The lowest number of imports in a financial year - just under 18,000 - was recorded in 1998-99.
The recent University of Sydney research shows that the trade has now recovered, with a steady increase in the 10 years since, peaking at 66,461 guns imported into Australia in 2009/10, the highest number in 13 years.
Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, from the University's School of Public Health, has stated, 'Since 1988, when the first of several mass shootings took place, 38 state and federal gun amnesties ran for well over 3000 weeks.
If we include all the gun owners who sent their weapons to the smelter without asking for money, the real total is a million firearms destroyed, or a third of the national private arsenal. That's many more than we usually talk about.'
Commenting on the replenishment of Australian gun stocks, Professor Alpers has noted, 'By mid-2012, following a steady 10-year upward trend in gun buying, Australians had restocked the national stockpile of private guns to pre-Port Arthur levels. They did this by importing 1,055,082 firearms, an average of 43,961 each year since destruction programs began.'

2. Popular acceptance of gun ownership and use is on the rise in Australia
It has been claimed that in the years since the Port Arthur massacre popular attitudes toward gun ownership have shifted. Gun ownership and gun club membership are both said to be increasing.
On November 13, 2011, an ABC Radio National Background Briefing noted 'Last year this gun club at Ipswich, west of Brisbane, had a ten per cent jump in membership. Across the country, young men ... are joining gun clubs to go hunting.'
One young Queensland gun club member was reported saying, 'Traditionally, it was a lot older guys, but I think maybe with the influence of video games and whatnot, guns are getting a bit more attention, hopefully a bit more positive. You know, there are a lot of misconceptions of the sport and it is a good fun, safe sport. And, yeah, it's very relaxing and, yeah, very, very fun.'
It has also been noted that gun lobbies are beginning to exert greater political influence. In 2011, the Queensland branch of the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia donated $100,000 to help Bob Katter set up Katter's Australian Party to contest the next Queensland and federal elections. Described by Bob Katter as 'the fun party', Katter's Australian Party wants to make it easier for people, especially boys, to go camping, fishing and shooting.'
Tim Bannister, a spokesperson for the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia has stated, 'We are quite happy that Mr Katter has brought recreational shooting and hunting up a bit. He's put it on the agenda. So, we can now actually say, 'okay,' to some of those politicians that haven't made any comment, 'where do you stand? We'd like to tell our members where you stand.' You know, 134,000 people would guarantee you there's some people that live in every single member's electorate. Now, they need to have a bit of a think about that.'
New legislation has recently been introduced in New South Wales seeks to allow shooters into national parks in that state.
Anti-gun lobbyist, Rebecca Peters has stated that such legislation seeks to normalise a gun culture in Australia. Ms Peters has argued, 'One reason why they would want to expand their access to hunting in more areas is to build public acceptance of hunting, to be able to recruit more people and to normalise it, basically, as part of society. To try to establish that it's normal to have guns and it's normal to kill other living creatures in New South Wales...'

3. Stricter gun laws have not made Australians appreciably safer
Critics of Australia's strict gun laws have claimed that this legislation has not made Australia a safer place in which to live. According to the most commonly put argument, violence in any community is not primarily a matter of the weapons available. If, it is argued, guns become less accessible, knives or other types of weapon will be used instead.
On January 19, 2011, The Daily Caller published an opinion piece by Ben-Peter Terpstra titled 'America, don't repeat Australia's gun-control mistake'. In this piece Terpstra used suicide data to argue that if one weapon is removed another will be employed. Terpstra claimed, 'Raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals that while suicide by firearms is continuing to decrease from a high in the 1980s, suicide by hanging steadily increased throughout the 1990s and increased for three consecutive years after the 1996 buy-back.'
On December 26, 2012, The Wall Street Journal published a comment by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School and the author of several books including 'Guns and Violence: The English Experience.' The piece is titled 'Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control'.
In the comment Professor Malcolm uses British and Australian data to argue that stricter gun controls have not resulted in safer communities. She has stated, 'In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.'
Professor Malcolm concludes, 'Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.'

4. Data regarding gun-ownership in Australia is inconclusive and trends are difficult to substantiate
After the Port Arthur massacre, tightened gun laws made it mandatory to register every gun and a streamlined national gun registration and licensing system was promised.
Today critics claim that the national registration system is ineffective. In a report posted on ABC News on November 12, 2011, it was claimed, 'No federal agencies or crime researchers were able to tell the ABC exactly how many registered guns or licensed shooters are in the country, and by how much gun numbers and gun owners were increasing.'
For the past 15 years, gun homicide rates have apparently been falling, but researchers fear because gun data is poorly kept and rarely shared, new crime trends involving guns are being missed.
Don Weatherburn, the director of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, has claimed that there needs to be a uniform system for recording crime statistics.
Mr Weatherburn has argued, 'It's not just national gun statistics. National crime statistics are in a dismal state and they really need significant attention.
We have some states counting things differently to other states; they're often non-comparable and for a while there the Australian Bureau of Statistics even made it impossible to compare one state's crimes with another states crimes.'
Mr Weatherburn concluded, 'And that's important because it's the statistical information that tells the public what's going on and also helps organisations like ours to analyse the trends and identify the patterns that can help police. So it's true to say that national crime statistics are badly in need of repair and reform.'

5. Gun laws leave weapons unregulated and in the hands of criminals
It has been claimed that all gun laws achieve is that weapons are taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and left in the possession of criminals and those who are prepared to own illegal guns without having them registered.
Critics of Australia's gun laws maintain that between July 1 1997 and 30 June 1999 nine in ten offenders in firearm-related homicides were unlicensed firearm owners.
The Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia (SSAA) has noted that during this two year period 'Of the 117 homicide offenders who used firearms to commit homicide, only 9.4% homicide offenders were licensed firearms owners with registered firearms. In other words licensed firearm owners were not responsible for the majority of firearm-related homicides. These findings are consistent with international research.'
In April, 2005, the SSAA also reported that in 2002-2003 the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) had recorded that over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered. In August, 2010, the SSAA further noted that in 2006-2007 the AIC had recorded that 93 per cent of firearms involved in homicides had never been registered and were used by unlicensed individuals.
Opponents of stricter gun controls argue that all such laws achieve is that gun ownership becomes concentrated in the hands of criminals and gang-related violence by armed perpetrators is likely to increase.
On January 19, 2011, The Daily Caller published an opinion piece by Ben-Peter Terpstra titled 'America, don't repeat Australia's gun-control mistake'. In this piece Terpstra claimed 'The passage of gun control laws fuelled our illegal arms market, and gun-hungry gangs multiplied. The significance: many gangland deaths/wars involved bullets. The tribal fights exploded after the Port Arthur massacre-inspired gun laws, against mainstream media predictions.'
Terpstra concluded, 'When one punishes law-abiding citizens for the sins of criminals, good intentions will backfire. By criminalizing productive citizens, we have made life easier for criminals, and wasted precious police resources on policing farmers.'

Arguments suggesting Australia's gun control laws have been a success
1. Australia's stricter gun laws have reduced gun ownership in this country
It has been claimed that the extent of gun ownership in Australia has not reached the level that it was immediately prior to the Port Arthur massacre.
Figures which suggest that the number of guns now in private hands has reached pre-1996 levels are criticised as misleading. Supporters of Australia's stricter gun laws point to their continuing success and claim that the increased number of guns currently owned in Australia is a reflection of Australia's larger population. The rate of gun ownership per person has not reached pre-1996 levels.
On January 15, 2013, The Sydney Morning Herald ran an opinion piece by Andrew Leigh, the federal member for Fraser, and a former professor of economics at the Australian National University.
Leigh argues that the rise in the number of guns in Australia since 1997 is more than matched by our population growth.
Leigh claims, 'The population is a fifth larger than it was in 1997. In reality, Australia has about as many guns per person as we did after the gun buyback. The only way to conclude the gun buyback has been undone is to ignore a decade and a half of population growth.'
Leigh further argues, 'Moreover, the figure that really matters is the share of gun-owning households. In 1997 many households used the chance to clean out the closet and take a weapon that hadn't been used in years to the local police station (the most common weapon handed in was a .22 calibre rifle). So the share of gun-owning households dropped from 15 per cent to 8 per cent.'
Leigh concludes, 'New firearms in Australia may be being bought by people who already have a weapon in the home. Adding a tenth gun to the household arsenal is much less risky than buying the first.'

2. Australia's stricter gun laws have reduced gun-related deaths and crime in this country
Supporters of Australia's gun control legislation point to the decline in gun-related deaths and crime which have occurred since the 1996 gun-buyback and the restrictions on gun ownership which accompanied it.
On January 16, 2013, The New York Times published an opinion piece by former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, in which he argues that the gun control legislation he introduced in Australia could also succeed in the United States.
Mr Howard explained the benefits that had come to Australia following the gun buyback and the introduction of stricter gun laws. Mr Howard stated, 'Today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres - each with more than four victims - causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.'
In 2010 Andrew Leigh of the Research School of Economics, Australian National
University and Christine Neill of the Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University conducted a study of the impact of Australia's gun buyback.
The researchers found that 'the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise.' Important for any discussion of causality, the authors also found that 'the largest falls in firearm deaths occurred in states where more firearms were bought back.' This study went on to cite survey results to suggest that Australia had nearly halved its number of gun-owning households and then estimated that, by withdrawing firearms on such a scale, this nation of nearly 23 million people had saved itself 200 deaths by gunshot and US$500 million in costs each year.
In 2013 an essay written by Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, from the University of Sydney's School of Public Health was published. Professor Alpers explains the positive impact of Australia's gun buyback scheme. The professor stated, 'The evidence is clear that following gun law reform, Australians became many times less likely to be killed with a firearm. That said, causality and standards of proof are as contentious in Australia as in any community polarized by the gun debate. Central to the differing interpretations is the fact that Australia's gun death rates were already declining prior to its major public health interventions. Taking this into account, one study concluded nevertheless that "the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws."'

3. Many of the claims made by opponents of Australia's gun laws involve a distortion of the relevant statistics
Defenders of Australia's gun laws have argued that many of their critics in Australia and the United States are distorting statistics in order to support their claims that restrictive gun laws are ineffective.
On February 8, 2013, The Arizona Daily Star published an opinion piece by Michael Brown. Michael Brown is a senior lecturer at Monash University and an Australian astronomer who lived in Tucson from 2000 to 2004.
Michael Brown has argued, 'Remarkably, some American gun advocates argue Australian gun laws have greatly increased crime. I have lived in Australia and Tucson, and this claim seems amazing, given how often my friends, colleagues and I encountered gun crime in America.
On closer scrutiny, it is clear the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates are applying several tricks and sleights of hand to make their case. Let's look at these in action.'
Brown then goes on to explain the distortions he believes have been made. 'The selective use of data, or cherry-picking, is used to get the "right" answer when all the data give the "wrong" answer.
NRA (National Rifle Association) News was cherry-picking when it reported this statistic from the Australian state of New South Wales: "In the inner west, robberies committed with firearms skyrocketed more than 70 percent over the previous year."
Rather than giving the national trend over many years, the NRA chose one part, of one city, in one state and just two years. This is misleading. Around Australia, robberies using firearms have declined from more than 1,500 per year in the 1990s to below 1,200 per year over the past five years.'
Brown went on to criticise another misuse of data. 'In the Wall Street Journal, Joyce Lee Malcolm stated, "The Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9 percent in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s but an increase of more than 40 percent in assaults and 20 percent in sexual assaults."
The implication is that gun control increases assaults and sexual assaults (including rape). This is false.
Weapons (including knives) are used in just 2 percent of sexual assaults in Australia. In the state of New South Wales, just 0.3 percent of assaults involve firearms. Firearm use is almost completely irrelevant to assault and sexual assault in Australia, and cannot be driving changes in these crimes.'
Brown concludes, 'Claims that Australian gun laws have increased crime are pure spin. These deceptive claims say more about the bitter partisan debate than about the reality in Australia.'
Similar claims have been made about the gun lobby in Australia. Gun Control Australia has noted, 'Several Australian gun clubs are deceiving the public by claiming that the National Firearms Agreement of 1996 has not been successful. The Sporting Shooters Association (SSAA) and the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting are two examples. We believe that soon our politicians will realise that it is often unwise to trust gun club leaders on gun law matters.'

4. Australia's gun laws include previsions that would help reduce the likelihood of further United States massacres
Supporters of stricter gun controls have argued that a number of the safeguards put in place under Australian legislation would have helped reduce the likelihood of the most recent gun massacre at Newtown, Connecticut, having occurred.
Australian anti-gun lobbyist, Rebecca Peters, has noted that two of the changes that Australia made to its background checks after the Port Arthur massacre might have prevented Adam Lanza from obtaining the weapon he used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
Australian background checks now require information about who gun owners live with. If police had determined that Lanza wouldn't have qualified to own a gun, his mother might have been either refused permission, or required to keep her guns locked in a different location.
Rebecca Peters has suggested that like Australia there are a few initial steps the United States could take to make the country safer. The first step, she argues, would be to bring back the assault weapon ban. Peters has stated, 'One of the next important changes would be to expand background checks: currently, gun owners undergo checks only if they buy a new gun not if they buy a used one.'
Peters also advocates increasing waiting periods and expanding checks on owners who want more than one gun.
Ms Peters argues, 'When you're talking about reducing motor vehicle accidents, you don't only rely on seat belts, you don't only rely on speed limits, you don't only rely on highway design, you don't only rely on motor vehicle standards, but you have a set of them. Similarly, they're a set of measures that together constitute regulation to prevent gun violence.'

5. Gun control measures such as those introduced in Australia reduce the likelihood of terrorist groups developing within a country
It has been argued that the ready availability of firearms increases the likelihood terrorist attacks within a country. Conversely, it has been claimed that reducing the ready availability of firearms reduces the incidence of terrorism.
On January 16, 2013, The Conversation published a comment by Shandon Harris-Hogan, a Researcher at the Global Terrorism Research Centre at Monash University. Mr Harris-Hogan stated, 'The introduction of restrictions on the sale of firearms in Australia has helped prevent such a mass casualty attack [involving terrorism]. In 2005 and 2009, cells were intercepted in Victoria which planned to conduct mass casualty attacks in the name of jihadist ideology. Both unsuccessfully attempted to procure guns from the black market.'
Mr Harris-Hogan has argued that the difficulty of acquiring firearms increases the likelihood that terrorists will be apprehended.
Mr Harris-Hogan concluded, 'The 2005 cell used money raised through criminal activity in an attempt to purchase firearms for the group. Three men were also convicted of planning a suicide mission on Holsworthy Army Barracks in 2009 using guns that carried "up to 60 bullets". These men were recorded commenting that with this type of weaponry, "20 minutes would be enough" to inflict mass casualties.
Fortunately, both groups had difficulty acquiring such weapons and authorities were able to intercept both cells before an attack could take place.'

Further implications
Despite the disputed figures, it seems probable that the gun buyback that followed the Port Arthur massacre and the accompanying restrictions placed on gun ownership have increased the safety of the Australian community.
It is also the case that the number of guns owned in Australia has grown. Though this is in part a consequence of population growth and does not reflect an increase in guns owned per capita, it does indicate that there are now many more guns available within the general community than was the case immediately after the gun buyback. This would seem to indicate that the incidence of gun-related deaths and injuries is likely to increase.
What seems to lie beneath this increase in gun numbers is a shift in popular attitudes toward gun ownership. The increase in gun club membership seems to reflect the same trend. It may be that as nearly a generation has now passed since the Port Arthur massacre the dangers of unrestricted access to semi automatic weapons has become less acute in the public consciousness. The fact that the New South Wales government is now is the process of making shooting legal within that state's national parks seems to reflect a similar shift in attitude.
This is not indicative of a failure in Australia's gun laws. It may be that their very success has led to complacency and thus a greater tolerance of firearms within the general community.
Australia has been suggested as a model that the United States might study as it considers tightening its gun laws. Perhaps Australia should also use the United States as a model. The dreadful loss of young lives resulting from the Newtown shootings could serve as a reminder to all Australians of why this country strengthened its gun laws. It is to be hoped that Australia will not have to suffer a massacre on its own soil in order to remind its citizens of the reason why we were originally prepared to embrace restrictions on gun ownership.